Shiva Rama Traders, Rep by its Proprietrix Velaga Swarupa Rani Wo v. Ram Mohan, Aged about

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.798 of 2025 in STC Nt No. 43 of 2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble I Addt. Judrcrat First Class Magistrate at Warangal and quash the Order, dated 18-06-2025 passed by the Hon ble l Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal rn Crt.M p.No.798 of 2025 in STC Nl No. 43 of 2024, and recall the NBW's issued against the Petrtioners. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may I I i I I i I I I I I I l I I I ! i ; l I I ! l be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in ST3 Nl No. 43 of 2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. Judicial First )lass Magistrate et Warangal, including the appearance of the Accused and fra ning of the charges till the disposal of the above Quash Petition in the interest of fre justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumer s of Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, Advocate for the Petttioners and the Jtr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the li :spondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l0895 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.798 of 2025 in STC Nl.No.43 of 2024 by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

2. Heard Mr.Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court dismissed the petition, which was filed to recall the NBW on 13.06.2025 on the ground that the accused was called absent on that date. He further submitted that the presence of the accused is not required for recalling the warrant. Hence, he prayed to set aside the said order.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in the petition. i l I l 2 5: perused the docket order in Crl.M.p llo.79g of 2025 in STC Nl.No.43 of 2024 passed by the learned I lagistrate. The docket order dated 1g.06.2025 reads as follows: "^pb 'Coun.ter tiled by the Counset of Complainatu Accused catted present as atready ;;p;:;;;;;) nr" b"rn granted by the court; .iccused ";;r;;i';;'rirected to produce the Accused .before the- Co;;' ;"; )e re cail stands canceled. ps tnthezrgirj ii iii"i"i't> execute the warrant." 6. On the same day, the Learned l/ lgistrate has passed the docket order on the STC Nl.No.43 of iO24 reads as follows: "Complainant called present. Complainant coutr ;el called present. Accused cailed absent. i"";";i c";;,r',Zt present. crt.M.p. u/as Dosreor ro, iiiiii"Co'uiter ntea "arca by the Counset for Co,motainant in-Ci.u.el1i,''Zrcaay 1y1!e oOOortynity was granted by the lcurt for appearance of Accused in spite or iniiiln"'iZ"u""a l:,!:!_^:: :epe,ar berore the court. Her,:e p.s rnrnez,argunj is directed to execute the Warrinr-ind fite repoft on payment of process.., 7. Thus, it appears that there happened to be a typographical mistake. A comparative perusal of bot r the orders reveals that some mistakes occurred while typinl; the orders dated 18.06.2025 in the Crl M.p. The docket order in the STC reveals that the accused was not present bul they were represented by counsel. Hence, Court has observed hat in spite of granting ample opportunity, the a@used was absent. Hence, the Police were directed to execute a warrant.

8. However, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that their petition vide Crl.M.P.No.798 of 2025 in STC Nl.No.43 of 2024 under Section 7O(2) ot Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court.

9. Considering the submissions of both counsel and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.09.2025. Upon such appearance and on filing of a proper petition by the counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. lt is further directed that the NBWs under challenge shall remain stayed until then. lt is made clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with the above directions, the relief granted herein shall stand automatically vacated. l0 Accordingly this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above direction Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The I Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal 2. The Station House Officer, lnthezargunj Police Station, Warnagal' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] a. One CC lo Mr. Bommrneni Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies W"m/GR HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER CRLP.No.10895 of 2025 q otL t-& xl\) \ { t .::/ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION $ L0